Basu: Housing is not just for families

Feb. 19, 2013

Written by

Absurd as that sounds, local governments in Iowa have the right to at least prevent your living with a certain number of people unrelated to you. Some cities, including Des Moines,West Des Moines and Ames, require that if more than three or four people share a single residential unit, they must be related by “blood, marriage or adoption.” Yet even 10 people are not too many if they’re members of the same family.

Discriminatory as they seem, the Iowa Supreme Court has said cities may set such ordinances.

What business is it of a city what the nature of people’s relationships is, as long as they take care of their property and pay their rent or mortgage on time? None, according to a majority on the Iowa House Judiciary Committee, which recently passed a bill to change the state law that permits cities to set such restrictions. Maybe at one time, when the family was the only unit sharing a home, that made sense. But today, when households come in all types — unmarried but cohabiting; foster families; friends sharing a home to save money — it’s not an appropriate basis for exclusion.

Nor is it an appropriate time, given the economy and many people’s need to cut living expenses.

These ordinances put pressure on college students, young professionals and low-wage laborers. They make it hard on immigrant men or women who are here without their families and working to send money home, often sharing living spaces, meals and chores with others.

They even discriminate against state legislators, as Rep. Chip Baltimore, R-Boone, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, points out. Some, who represent districts at a distance from Des Moines, prefer to share rentals while the Legislature is in session.

Baltimore says these ordinances have been driven by “property owners in older neighborhoods that don’t want college kids around, or believe they drive property values or rental values down.”

You might think liberals would be the ones supporting the rights of people, especially renters, to define their households as they choose, and conservatives would be more prone to defining households based on family and looking out for property values. But the bill to change the law is Republican-sponsored, while Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, a committee member, opposes it. The Iowa Civil Liberties Union hasn’t taken a position, but the self-described “progressive” Justice Reform Coalition supported an earlier version of the bill. Various cities are registered against the bill.

Baltimore said he introduced it after being approached by some homeowners and landlords. A Register story quoted Kelli Excell, an Ames real state agent and president of Landlords of Iowa, calling it “morally incorrect” to have to kick people out of rental properties because they don’t meet the family requirement.

Baltimore said cities already have ordinances to deal with disturbances such as noise, parking, public intoxication and overcrowding. There are prohibitions against appliances outside, couches on front porches and cars on lawns. “If there are enough causes to evict tenants, there are plenty of other means based on the objection and legitimate reasons,” he said.

Des Moines City Attorney Jeff Lester raises the specter of boarding houses and fraternity houses cropping up in family neighborhoods, and five or six adults with five or six cars in one home having “a very negative impact.” He says cities don’t have the resources to handle every noise or parking complaint, noting, “Nuisance cases are difficult to prosecute and they take a lot of time.”

One can certainly empathize with residents faced with disruptive neighbors. But a lack of city resources, or the fact that people accused of disturbances are entitled to defend themselves, are not sufficient justification for social engineering by municipal governments.

The proposed bill says, “A city shall not adopt or enforce any regulation or restriction related to the occupancy of residential rental property that is based upon the existence of familial or nonfamilial relationships between the occupants of such rental property.”

It passed out of the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, but Baltimore doesn’t know if a majority of House Republicans support it. “My bill manager is taking the temperature of the majority,” he said. “That’s one we’re going to let percolate and see if we’ve got enough.”

The bill faces an uncertain future in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Similar legislation died in a committee last year.

Excell said she didn’t think it right to “discriminate against people because there are some neighborhoods who do not want renters.” Instead of prejudging people based on their familial, student or homeowner status, we should judge them on their actual behavior, and respond accordingly.